It's all about long-term growth

Over the past few weeks, a number of commentators have accused the Rudd Government of lacking a narrative. I think this criticism is misconceived.

No government has a static narrative or theme which prevails over all other things indefinitely. Most governments have multiple narratives, with a dominant theme emerging over time. All governments are at the mercy of events, which can play havoc with the best-crafted and lovingly nurtured narrative.

A new government's narrative is almost invariably an extension on its election campaign themes. Gradually, the narrative evolves beyond those themes as time passes. The Hawke government's election messages (consensus, revival of economic growth, etc) dominated its narrative until 1986, when the banana republic crisis forced a sudden changing of gears.

It is completely wrong to suggest that the Rudd Government has no narrative. In fact, the government's narrative is very simple and clear. It can be summed up in three words: long-term sustainable growth.

Most of the government's major initiatives are built around this objective. Some obvious examples include:

Under John Howard, the government lived for today and ignored the future. It used the proceeds of the mining boom for short-term political purposes, not long-term investment.

That's why when Labor came to office, inflation was already beginning to rise. Too much spending was pumping up demand and too little investment was restricting economic capacity. The Reserve Bank has said very plainly that this was the source of upward pressure on inflation and interest rates.

Australia faces many challenges. The Rudd Government is committed to achieving strong economic growth, but that growth has to be sustainable in the long-term. That's the central theme that binds together most of the government's key policy initiatives. It's the central narrative of the Rudd Government.

Posted
by EdSeptember 16, 2008 9:47 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

Hi Lindsay,

I don't know that the longer term setting of a narrative is as important right now as a bit of short term hand holding. Although the Rudd Government certainly can't have it levelled against it that it has generated the current economic precariousness, I suspect that it would help very much if there was a we're-all-in-this-together sentiment being expressed at the moment. Particularly in the case of small and medium-sized private enterprises where there is considerable nervousness.

I don't think that anyone expects the Fed Govt to turn around global economic circumstances, but rallying the troops cannot be underestimated in such difficult times.

I think the broader narrative of the Rudd Government can - and will - be developed over time. But let's also do a bit more living for today.

Glad to see you're blogging.

Cheers

Posted by: L on September 19, 2008 10:13 AM

I don't think I have heard anyone say, "This government doesn't have a narrative." I have heard them say "This government doesn't have a bloody clue what it's doing", or "This government is run by left-wing unions".
I have also heard them say the government is good at telling stories, but I'm not sure if this qualifies as "having a narrative".
I would have thought that the narrative-meisters, aka the spin doctors would have tipped a bucket on a phrase like "having a narrative" about the time Kim Beazley produced his London Underground map of the "knowledge nation".
Remember, we punters are not that smart, and although many of may hold post-modernist views, we don't know what post-modernist dialectic is all about, and we sure as hell have trouble telling a Narrative from a Navarra.

Posted by: Professor Rosseforp on September 16, 2008 10:10 PM

Sounds like Lindsay has been trying out for a spot on 'The Hollowmen'

Posted by: Simon on September 16, 2008 8:20 PM

Thats one long list- it seems that you guys may have bit of more than you can chew. It would be nice if for once government(any government) set dates by which it wanted certain goals reached as opposed moving towards ever shifting destinations

Posted by: MARK on September 16, 2008 12:30 PM

Let us take these one by one:

"carbon pollution reduction scheme and other action on climate change"

Agreed on this one, so when do we see the solar industry being properly subsidised?

"education revolution initiatives, such as early childhood learning and trades training centres"

Trade training centres, agreed. The rest of this is just too vague. What are you planning to teach 4 year olds? And what is the incentive for teachers? After all, happy teachers are good teachers.

"infrastructure investment through three major infrastructure funds"

Agreed.

"national broadband network"

Agreed, but how is it to be done and by whom? We don't want another grab for cash by corporate cowboys.

"regulation reform to create a seamless national economy"

Too absolutist. How will you do it and what are the real benefits for the average person?

"trade agreements such as the ASEAN free trade agreement"

Disagree. "free trade" benefits only the biggest traders and destroys local industry. Protection is vital in a world full of sharks.

"reform of Australia's water management arrangements"

Saving the Murray-Darling would be a good first step. When do you start?

"a strong budget surplus and restrained government spending"

Disagree. Budgets are for spending not hoarding. Properly targeted government spending is the key, not restrained spending.

"increased skilled migration"

Lazy option. Did you ever consider training people that are already here or is that too hard?